The Sifrei at the very beginning of parshat Matot mentions the idea that here, the nesiim (princes, leaders) were told first, before the rest of the populace. The same is true for other dibrot, but how this is derived is a matter of dispute. (See Sifrei, and Rashi.)
How, though, does this pasuk teach that Moshe spoke to the nesiim first? Only the nesiim are mentioned (רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת) while the rest of the populace are not mentioned at all!
The answer is fairly clear, and I see others have already put it forward. Siftei Chachamim cites Mizrachi, who explains that וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר is being taken as "And Moshe spoke unto the heads of the tribes, and unto the children of Israel, saying." That is, אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת and לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל are two recipients of Moshe's dibbur, rather than לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל acting to modify רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת (that they were the heads of the tribes of benei yisrael).
I would only add that this parsing of the pasuk in fact corresponds to the way the trup parses the pasuk, and so the public reading of Torah in shul reflects this midrashic parsing.
How so? I've written about this in the past, and for further reading on the subject of understanding trup one should look to Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament, by William Wickes (link goes to amazon, where you can buy the book). Basically, trup can be determined by a simple algorithm determined by the logical parsing of each verse and the distance of each break (disjunctive accent) from the end of its clause or subclause.
Here, the trup is:
ב וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה הֽ׃
There is an etnachta on the word לֵאמֹ֑ר which breaks the pasuk in two, and since we only are concerned with the contents of the first half of the verse, we can ignore the rest. Now, there are two trup that subdivide a clause ending in etnachta. One is zakef and the other is tipcha. A tipcha is used within one word or two away from the etnachta, while zakef is used two or more words away from the etnachta. (For comprehensiveness, there is a form of zakef, called segol, which occurs 9 words or more away from etnachta.)
Both zakef and tipcha occur here, a fairly usual occurrence. The zakef occurs on the word הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, while tipcha occurs on the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל.
What this means is that the clause ending in etnachta is being subdivided twice. We start with:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
We then subdivide it at the word הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, which gives us two clauses:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
Of these two clauses, only one of them, the latter, ends in an etnachta. By Wickes' rules, since the clause has three (or more) words in it, it must be subdivided, and so we divide it at the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל into:
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
לֵאמֹ֑ר
A slight digression. How do we know that the tipcha did not subdivide the clause first? Because then, starting with:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
we would subdivide at tipcha into:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
לֵאמֹ֑ר
We then would not be able to make sense of the zakef at הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, for a zakef only subdivides a clause ending with etnachta (or silluq/sof pasuk). (We know this through extensive study of how trup works in general throughout Tanach, and this rule holds.) Any subdivision of a clause ending in tipcha, as the former of the two above does, would have to utilize the tevir trup - ֛ .
Thus, the parsing of the pasuk, as we read it in shul, is:
{
What if we wanted to convey the meaning: to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel? Then אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל would be a single phrase, and assuming we would have the tipcha on יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, then we would have a tevir on הַמַּטּ֛וֹת, a darga (which functions as a servus for tevir) on אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֧י, a revi'i to subdivide a clause ending in tevir, so with a munuch as as servus of that, so: וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֗ה
In total, the first half of the pasuk, if I did not mess up somewhere, would have looked like this:
וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֧י הַמַּטּ֛וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
}
Both zakef and tipcha occur here, a fairly usual occurrence. The zakef occurs on the word הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, while tipcha occurs on the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל.
What this means is that the clause ending in etnachta is being subdivided twice. We start with:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
We then subdivide it at the word הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, which gives us two clauses:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
Of these two clauses, only one of them, the latter, ends in an etnachta. By Wickes' rules, since the clause has three (or more) words in it, it must be subdivided, and so we divide it at the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל into:
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
לֵאמֹ֑ר
A slight digression. How do we know that the tipcha did not subdivide the clause first? Because then, starting with:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
we would subdivide at tipcha into:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
לֵאמֹ֑ר
We then would not be able to make sense of the zakef at הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, for a zakef only subdivides a clause ending with etnachta (or silluq/sof pasuk). (We know this through extensive study of how trup works in general throughout Tanach, and this rule holds.) Any subdivision of a clause ending in tipcha, as the former of the two above does, would have to utilize the tevir trup - ֛ .
Thus, the parsing of the pasuk, as we read it in shul, is:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹתwhich is the way the Sifrei takes it.
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
And Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes,
To the children of Israel, saying:
{
What if we wanted to convey the meaning: to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel? Then אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל would be a single phrase, and assuming we would have the tipcha on יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, then we would have a tevir on הַמַּטּ֛וֹת, a darga (which functions as a servus for tevir) on אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֧י, a revi'i to subdivide a clause ending in tevir, so with a munuch as as servus of that, so: וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֗ה
In total, the first half of the pasuk, if I did not mess up somewhere, would have looked like this:
וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֧י הַמַּטּ֛וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
}
No comments:
Post a Comment